The Need for a Good Poll | The Institute for Creation Research
 
The Need for a Good Poll

Numerous times over the years pollsters have noted that Americans are creationist. Usually over 50% are strict, young Earth, Biblical creationists, with another 40% believing in some form of God-directed evolution. Less than 10% hold to purely naturalistic evolution. Yet those in the 10% are the ones who hold a monopoly on university professorships, textbook content editors, teacher union leadership, prominence in the media, and the judicial system. A fringe group of zealots hold enormous power over the majority.

Recently two new polls came out. On July 6 The Harris Poll concluded (in the release's title) "Nearly two thirds of U. S. adults believe human beings were created by God." Another portion believed an unspecified "intelligent design" was responsible for human origin. Those who believed in evolution were not asked if the evolution was overseen by God.

Unfortunately, the questions were not explicit enough to reveal enough details. Some of them would be hard to answer even for a knowledgeable citizen. For instance it was asked, "Is Darwin's theory proven by fossil discoveries?" The pollsters may not know it, but few evolutionists agree with this statement. Most thinking evolutionists have given up on the fossil record as providing proof of evolution. They may think evolution is true, but look to other evidence for proof. How would they answer?

A second poll was also released in July, this one by the Pew Research Center. Similarly, 42% of respondents claim-ed that direct creation accounted for humans, while another 18% held that it was guided by a Supreme Being. Only 26% felt it was due to natural selection alone.

Again, questions were not definitive enough to draw firm conclusions. I would have had a difficult time knowing how to answer some questions, such as "Life on Earth has existed in its present form since the beginning of time." I am convinced that all of life (including mankind) has adapted to changing conditions and that mutation and genetic recombination has occurred, horizontal change is not true vertical evolution. Each basic category of life was created "after its kind" and has either continued into the present as that kind or gone extinct. No new basic types have arisen from other basic types. How would this be recorded in the misleading polls?

Often the poll's results were self-contradictory, indicating mutually exclusive opinions on a point. Are the people so confused, or were the questions misleading? A good poll should not lead or mislead the responders.

The need for reliable information is obvious. A nation responsible to its citizenry must have these data to make good educational and policy decisions. To whoever's listening, I call for another poll, but this time a good one.

It must be recognized that the words evolution, creation, change, etc., mean different things to different people, yet most have definite opinions on the broad subject. It seems to me that evolution teaching has often sought to miscommunicate on various points, but I would like to know what people really think. A poll must not merely sample people's misconceptions or variety of misconceptions, or identify areas of confusion. To be useful, a poll must define the concepts at issue, and then sample the opinions. A paragraph discussing the difference between microevolution (the small horizontal changes to which all agree whether or not they understand it) and macroevolution (big vertical change which is the real point of interest for the surveys) would help to clarify things so that the results are meaningful. Precision also needs to be attached to dates so that poll responders are comparing "apples to apples."

The Institute for Creation Research offers its expertise as advisor to any or all of the major polling services. We are acutely interested in truth, not in steering the results, and we suspect pollsters are interested also. Let's ferret this out together, and then we'll know something worth knowing.

Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2005. The Need for a Good Poll. Acts & Facts. 34 (11).

The Latest
NEWS
Mutation, Design & Randomness
Article highlights: • A genetic mutation is a change—most are bad and some are good. • Evolutionists claim that good mutations come...

NEWS
Ireland’s First Dinosaur Bones Found in Flood Rocks
Ireland finally has some dinosaur fossils of its own.1 The ground-breaking discovery came as a bit of a surprise, however, as the bones were...

NEWS
Control Loops in Humans and Nature
Ever had a blood test? Along with a value measured, there are also the normal max/min limits for that value. This implies that the body normally controls...

NEWS
Creation and Climate Science with Dr. Jake Hebert
ICR physicist Dr. Jake Hebert* recently made a guest appearance on Good Heavens! A Podcast About the Universe with Wayne and Dan. Dr. Hebert presented...

NEWS
Inside May 2021 Acts & Facts
How should Christians respond when authorities are in conflict with God’s Word? Can we trust scientific measurements and reports about fossil...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Volcanoes
Christy Hardy and Susan Windsor* You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with...

ACTS & FACTS
Tributes of Honor and Remembrance
At the end of a long day, a boss I had early in my career would often tell me, “No more today, Henry. My brain is full.” I found his comments...

APOLOGETICS
Guided by Lynx to Appreciate Christ
Not all tour guides in Alaska are human. Amazing animals of Alaska can guide us into learning creation truth. In fact, such animals should direct us—like...

ACTS & FACTS
Zion National Park: Evidence of Deep Water Sand Waves
Brian Thomas, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D.* It was like driving into another world when we emerged from Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel right at dawn....

ACTS & FACTS
Is the Bible Evidence for Creation?
Have you ever had a skeptic tell you to keep the Bible out of it when discussing origins? Skeptics claim we Christians argue in a circle, that we are...